9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that Chapter IVB relates to prevention or detention of illegal exports of goods wherein under Section 11(J) persons possessing specified goods are required to intimate the place of storage, if the market price exceeds Rupees Fifteen thousand within seven days from the date of their possession, ownership etc. and under Section 11 they were required to maintain proper account of the same. In case, the provision of Chapter IVB are not followed, the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 113(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Statement of the appellant was recorded on 22-6-1988 wherein he stated that he entered into a transaction for the purchase of silver with a Dalal whose name and address was not known to him, that since he was to gain a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpression that it was necessary to declare the same only if it was offered for sale. Samples drawn from the seized silver were sent to Government mint for assaying and found to be of purity between 995.3 to 999.1. Show cause notice was accordingly issued to him proposing confiscation of silver under Sections 113(d) and 113(1) of Customs Act and confiscation of Indian currency of Rs. 1,50,000/-under Section 121 of Customs Act and imposition of penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act. The matter was adjudicated by Dy. Commissioner who ordered absolute confiscation of silver and imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- but did not order confiscation of Indian currency of Rs. 1,50,000/-. This order was upheld in appeal. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 113 are not applicable and therefore confiscation is not justified and accordingly no penalty is imposable under Section 114 of the Customs Act. Penalty could have been imposed only under Section 117 which is a residuary clause and refers to contravention of any provision of Act for which no extra penalty has been provided elsewhere. Though the compliance of Section 11(J) of Customs Act is mandatory and its contravention attracts confiscation only when the basic requirement of export goods and attempt to export improperly etc. under Section 113 of the Act are fulfilled. 3. Ld. DR however submitted that during the relevant period when illegal export and import was rampant under Chapter IVB of Customs Act special measures were introd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Chapter IVB is justifiable and so is the imposition of penalty. The appellant has been changing his stand as first he stated that the goods were purchased for the purpose of selling on commission but later on claimed it as ancestral property for which a declaration was filed with Income-tax authority, which declaration was not accepted and the matter was ultimately settled under amnesty scheme by paying tax. Therefore, credentials of the appellant have been questionable from very beginning. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. 5. I find that the appellant has been changing his stand from time to time wherein he first claimed the goods have been purchased through a Dalal, which statement was changed by saying that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
